During the All Night Programme, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, a guest reviewed a book called Himmler’s brain is called Heydrich, which was about the assassination of Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich by Czech patriots during World War II. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the review breached the good taste and decency standard: the review did not minimise the horror of the Holocaust or the events depicted in the novel, and the book was presented as an historical fictional novel that was a blend of fact and fiction.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
During a segment called “Ideas” on Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, the host interviewed a professor about his creative writing course and about writers and the writing community in general; the professor made comments about a “generation” of New Zealand poets, including A.R.D Fairburn and Denis Glover. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards: the comments did not form part of a “factual programme”, so the controversial issues standard did not apply; this episode of “Ideas” was not “factual programming” to which the accuracy standard applied, and in any event the professor’s comments amounted to his personal opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy; and the fairness standard only applies to individuals and organisations – it does not apply to people who are deceased, or to a “generation of poets”.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
An item on TV3’s 60 Minutes told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 and turned himself in to police 24 years later. It included very brief footage of the front porch of the complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that this was where the murder had taken place. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to the privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards: the complainant was not identifiable through the footage of her house; while the footage and the implication that the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item, so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect; the complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
An episode of the cartoon comedy South Park was broadcast on FOUR at 9.30pm. It depicted Queen Elizabeth II committing suicide, following a botched terrorism attempt; the episode was rated Adults Only (AO) and was preceded by a visual and verbal warning. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached the good taste and decency standard: the episode used parody and satire to comment on politics, and freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures; and the content was acceptable during an AO programme screened at 9.30pm.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
At approximately 9.11pm during Kerre Woodham Talkback, the host said, “You fricken moron”, in response to a caller’s comment that having a disability was the result of “inbreeding”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comment breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: the comment was broadcast after 9pm during a talkback programme targeted at adults, it would not have surprised or offended most listeners, and its broadcast in this context was not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
A 3 News item on the Conservative Party leader and apparent party practices commented on the party’s “distinctly Christian streak”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the discrimination and denigration standard: the item was a legitimate and straightforward news report which did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
An item on One News reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The item contained footage of an SPCA raid at the complainant’s property and archive photographs of cats and dogs there. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy, fairness and privacy standards: the reporter’s summary of the court judgment captured the essence of a complex decision; the archive photographs and footage were used as visual wallpaper and would not have misled viewers; the complainant was provided with an adequate opportunity to comment; and though he was identifiable the photographs were legitimately obtained by SPCA, and the use of archive footage was justified, given the ongoing focus on the complainant’s breeding activities.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness
An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm, reported on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington and contained footage of a stripper wearing only a G-string and dancing erotically. The broadcaster upheld the initial complaint that this breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, apologising to the complainant and counselling its editorial staff to prevent a similar breach. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient.
Not Upheld (Action Taken): Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests
In an interview on Radio New Zealand National’s Checkpoint the Executive Director of the Rape Prevention Education Group stated, “I think our focus has to be on the safety of our children, and we know that approximately one in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to experience some form of sexual violence before the age of 16”. RNZ News later reported, “The group’s executive director, Kim McGregor, claims . . .” and repeated the figures. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the statement breached the accuracy standard: the Director’s comment was not a statement of fact but reflected her views and experiences, and was presented from an advocacy perspective, the figures were approximates and, while contentious, were supported by some independent research.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The question for the Authority was whether a complaint had been submitted within the time allowed. The complainant submitted two formal complaints about two broadcasts on Fair Go, using the broadcaster’s online complaint form. The broadcaster declined to accept the second complaint on the basis that it was out of time. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989 formal complaints must be lodged in writing with the broadcaster within 20 working days after the programme has screened. The complainant submitted his online complaint shortly before midnight on 28 June, the 20th working day after the broadcast. The definition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies days of the year that are to be excluded but not times of day. The Authority held that the ordinary meaning of a “day” runs from midnight to midnight and that the complaint should have been accepted by the broadcaster. The Authority made an order directing the complaint back to the broadcaster to be accepted and considered as a formal complaint.
Order: Broadcaster to accept and consider complaint as a formal complaint